10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial.

Abstract

This study was designed to compare the long-term clinical outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with intracoronary stenting of patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. Although numerous trials have compared coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery, none assessed the clinical evaluation in the long term. We evaluated the 10-year clinical outcome in the SIMA (Stent versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial. Patients were randomly assigned to stent implantation versus CABG. Of 123 randomized patients, 59 underwent CABG and 62 received a stent (2 patients were excluded). Follow-up after 10 years was obtained for 98% of the randomized patients. Twenty-six patients (42%) in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and 10 patients (17%) in the CABG group reached an end point (p < 0.001). This difference was due to a higher need for additional revascularization. The incidences of death and myocardial infarction were identical at 10%. Progression of the disease requiring additional revascularization was rare (5%) and was similar for the 2 groups. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (3%). Angina functional class showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Both stent implantation and CABG are safe and highly effective in relieving symptoms in patients with isolated, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Stenting with bare-metal stents is associated with a higher need for repeat interventions. The long-term prognosis for these patients is excellent with either mode of revascularization.